2006-06-21 05:35:15 · 13 answers · asked by budgetcasket 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
The question should be "How much justice can you afford?" Many innocent people are in jail and many more guilty are free.
2006-06-21 07:10:25 · answer #1 · answered by -Tequila17 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't believe it's "innocent until proven guilty" or "guilty until proven innocent."
What about the ones who are never even charged because their family and friends "make it go away" or the police have their own biases about which people have the right to access to police assistance?
What difference does it make if a person is found "guilty" if they can serve time in a "luxury" prison or not serve jail time at all?
What difference does it make if a person is found "not guilty" if society will shun or blacklist them? They can't live where they once did, they usually can't get a job, etc.
From what I've seen, it's "guilty (or innocent) depending on what the mass majority think about you and society will exact out your punishment (or overlook your behavior) based on their own biases."
2006-06-21 13:17:07 · answer #2 · answered by jd 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is merely a convention of USA law derived from English law.
It is not to be understood as a truism. Just an assumption as a beginning point in a justice process that is better than its opposite
" guilty until proven innocent"
formerly people were considered guilty until proven innocent and it caused a lot of problems and did not result in justice. so we changed it after many eons of pain and suffering and unfairness.
The best way to appreciate how important it is, is to be arrested and charged with a crime you did not commit.
2006-06-21 12:41:07 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is the idea in a perfect world. A person is innocent until proven guilty. But in our world if someone was is taken into custody they are guilty until proven innocent. But even if they are innocent it can still have a negative impact on their future.
2006-06-21 12:39:01 · answer #4 · answered by butterflykisses427 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It should be guilty until proven Innocent
2006-06-21 12:39:39 · answer #5 · answered by mp5 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
in England,France,Germany, and Spain they have a law that says if you are guilty by the police then you guilty until proven innocent, but in united states its innocent until proven guilty.
2006-06-21 12:39:17 · answer #6 · answered by squid 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're correct! That's what we say, but what we practice is entirely different. Once one is arrested and charged, the burden rests on the defendant to prove him/herself innocent and this is because what the state says in a courtroom is tantamount to gospel anymore. In order to refute the state money is required, thus leaving out the poor. If you have money, you can buy justice (just ask Robert Blake and O.J.). The system is flawed and in dire need of an overhaul.
2006-06-21 12:41:26 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You know as much the law makers/enforers want us(the people) to belive that i dont. Because there are many times when police officers have told the murder,stealer,and/or any other wrong-doer that they are going to prison.Also it all depends on your race, i know many people think that racism no longer exists in the usa but it does;because i (black)could kill my wife and have no other mess ups with the law and get 55 yrs while billy over there(white) can get 5 yrs and do the same thing!!
***So you see no that stuff is a lie in my eyes
*********************GOD Bless ya!
2006-06-21 12:44:34 · answer #8 · answered by edw16ards 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In this country it seems as though you are guilty until proven innocent- sad isn't it!?
2006-06-21 12:39:14 · answer #9 · answered by DeeLicious 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
innocence costs money. only the rich can be proven innocent, unless their crime is too outrageous and society provides a public outcry, like the enron scam. and i bet quietly they will get over in some way.
2006-06-21 13:12:23 · answer #10 · answered by 53&luvnit 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋